Review and adjust weight of ITB CRX Si as appropriate

[StephenB]

Not my style, you need someone else for the job if you want to play us vs. them. I'd rather work together in a fashion that at least works.

Thanks for contributing to everything I HATE about this club. Keep this quote... since the club doesn't vote by popular vote you are actually playing the politics very well. Good luck in your future.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Whoa, hang on there Stephen. Josh is working hard to keep things together in a pretty messy time, and we DO need to work with the CRB (and our relationship with them).

The Quisling/Patrick Henry stuff gets really old. This isn't the freaking Revolutionary War. It's a disagreement over how IT weights -- in a CLUB of amateurs doing AMATEUR racing -- should be set. The CRB are not bad folks. They are as committed to the success of IT as anyone.

We are working on the disagreement part. It's not where I want it to be right now, but we are working on it.

And yes, one problem we have is that there is no real definition of error for purposes of adjusting a weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

From memory, that one met the operational definition of error. It is the same engine as the late 2002, with an effectively identical chassis layout/suspension, and yet it was MUCH heavier than that 2002. The 2002 was considered to be the "correct" listing as it was on the "bogie list" during the realignment, so the 320i was adjusted to match. (It could have been made even lighter to exactly match the 2002, but instead it was adjusted to its process weight, which is pretty close to the 2002, but the 2002 isn't exactly at its process weight either.)

Ugh. Total BS from the CRB Josh. Who in the world cares about HOW you see the mistake, as long as you see it and correct it???? I don't care if it mirros a car that is classed via the Process and is reset as such or you see it's way out of whack via teh Process and is reset. You either CAN or you CAN'T reset weights after a certain timeframe has expired?

Which is it? I respect what you are doing but come on here.

[jjjanos]

Not my style, you need someone else for the job if you want to play us vs. them. I'd rather work together in a fashion that at least works.

1. It isn't "working" as it perpetuates an incorrect set of the world.
2. It isn't working "together" since the system is theirs.

[jjjanos]

Whoa, hang on there Stephen. Josh is working hard to keep things together in a pretty messy time, and we DO need to work with the CRB (and our relationship with them).

Work on the relationship? That's rich. The CRB has said the "relationship" is servile - shut up and do what we want, the way we want it and when you don't, it's still going to be the way we want it.

I fail to see where there is any grey area in which to work. It is very clear to me that there is no possibility of "working with" the current CRB. The only variable that can be altered is the CRB itself, as in how to get it replaced.

There are members of the CRB that have been disingenuous, dishonest and deceitful in their dealings with the ITAC. There is no possibility of reforming that.

The Quisling/Patrick Henry stuff gets really old. This isn't the freaking Revolutionary War. It's a disagreement over how IT weights -- in a CLUB of amateurs doing AMATEUR racing -- should be set. The CRB are not bad folks. They are as committed to the success of IT as anyone.

Well, I would disagree on many counts. There are people on the CRB who by their dishonest actions are bad people. I have doubts regarding their commitment to the success of IT - the CRB suffers from a Runoffs-centric view. As for Quisling/Henry - you either hold true to your convictions or you don't

If one believes in the "process" and disagrees with the displacement view, continuing as an underling for the current CRB equates to being a sellout. There is no hope of changing their world view. The current CRB has made that very clear. I far more respect the act of resignation.

[GTIspirit]

...I estimate your car needs to make 109whp to be at process weight.

Just wondering, is that 109whp on a Mustang Dyno or a Dynojet Dyno?

[lateapex911]

That BMW was on the books for a year, it seemed. We did research, called experts. It wasn't easy finding somebody who really knows what the engine is capable of in IT trim. Then it was adjusted and sent to the CRB, and, along with others, it got lost in limbo, as the CRB evidently ruminated on it and other things. When it came out in the wash, we heard, through backchannels that the CRb wasn't happy with the ITAC. Soon there was a "No adjustments decree", and all those limbo cars got rejected.

So, and i know this well, because I was the guy who had to pen the wording of why or what we were doing with them, and trust me, I scratched my head to explain it.....as in WHY we were, suddenly, after 5 years of doing this with the active participation and complicit approval of the CRB, we were suddenly stopping. heck, it's hard to explain when you yourself don't get it. And the statement that we were given a "One time" pass, is BS. That's NOT what I was told on con calls. Those were some of my first con calls, and I took notes for my personal use. In fact, we whittled the list down to the most grievous offenders and were told, "Lets make it a reasonable list, get that approved, then see how the cars do, and how the class reacts before we make more changes," That is NOT a description of a one time never to be repeated adjustment.

There was discussion, of the rules, "errors" etc., and the CRB gave us definitions of "errors". And oddly, those definitions changed from one month to another. I remember calling Andy after one call at midnight asking HIM if he knew what our JOB was, and HOW we were to do it.

THEN the CRB came on the call, post "no more adjustments", and said, "Let's look at that list of cars". To which I replied, "I JUST submitted that phrasing for no adjustments, didn't we print that in Fastrack???". Response was no, they decided not to. Then I was asked what the first car on the list was...I protested further, and was told "Jake, do you want to adjust cars or not? lets get to work". (That's a quote)

And that was that.

So, yea, I have notes about rules and such, but I sure have doubts about the definitions due to nebulous and conflicting explanations, and I certainly think there has been some reversals of direction and tone.

I hated resigning. HUGE regret that it came to that place.

My decision to leave came when the head of the CRB, in discussing the process said, "I have no faith in any Process that uses stock horsepower at its core". (That might not be exact, but i can look thru my notes if anyone wishes, it's very close and accurate in it's gist). I was aghast. As in mouth open. I was the ITAC chair on that call, as Andy was traveling, and I was running the meeting, and i remember thinking, "I have to say something", but I couldn't find words. I mean, what the hell have we been doing for FIVE years? We certainly knew that stock power isn't always right, but we build loops in the Process to handle that, and our history is chock full of exceptions where we dealt with incorrect stock ratings, so I was shocked...it was a statement that basically, put the entire process under doubt, and my follow up questioning confirmed that statement reflected the true thoughts of it's owner. Further, the concept of the "like architecture" got trotted out, and I knew I could not support that, so I was gone, as I felt the cornerstones that we worked so hard and long on had gone out the door.

I wanted no part in that.

Chip, this is for you. I wanted to run with Process v2.0. It's a tremendous piece of work, and is EXACTLY what the category means, and is what the MEMBERS have CLEARLY demanded. I would have been fine with publishing it. More than fine. Over 5 years, it served us well, and we refined it's use and buttoned down some loose ends. And issues with it have yet to really surface.

But, that's behind us now, sadly.

Going forward, any hope of getting IT run in a manner that the members have clearly demanded is going to need two things to happen:
1- the CRB will need to open up to the members and accept their wants and desires. (big picture)...I've mentioned that in con calls, online in discussions with direct replies by CRB members, yet it's never been answered....I think they really need to come to grips with this aspect.
2- The ITCS needs to be rewritten to allow the proper operation of the category.

[tom91ita]

Just wondering, is that 109whp on a Mustang Dyno or a Dynojet Dyno?

the dyno type does matter as i have been led to believe.

one reason i also presented the inconsistency based on displacement and compression ratio is because different postings have made that sound like that is the be-all and end-all.

so weight my car based on the #/liter similar to the other cars.

Andy, i apologize if i got the calc method wrong with the miata. i must have been looking at the wrong line on the SCCA spreadsheet posted at SCCA.com for the calculation method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document.

2A. There are cars in the ITCS that are red flags. Alfas, Audis, Triumphs, anything from the smog era, etc. These cars may show low stock HP and huge gains in IT trim or have unreliable European hp numbers from different eras. Careful care and patience must be displayed on both sides. ITAC should do reasearch. Member may be required to submit real dyno data and build sheets. All in an effort for a one-off to be classed fairly but to limit the potential for a mistake that disrupts the class.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

[Andy Bettencourt]

so weight my car based on the #/liter similar to the other cars.

Here is the rub. I don't know anyone except 1 or 2 CRB members that like this method. With the contraintes of the IT ruleset, I think it is a horrible yardstick. With things like cams, carbs, throttle bodies, air metering devices, compression ratios - all having to remain stock (CR is equal because everyone gets the .5 allowance), you can't equalize them from car to car. So you have what you have. Just because two cars have 2.0 liters means NOTHING in IT. It may mean something in full-prep Production because all those things are open, but not in this house.

So to set weight in a power to weight calculation, you need a hp estimate. If you don't know, you guess and you hope you get it close. If you do, you must use it, especially when it has the potential to create an overdog. Take your car:

91hp x 1.25 = 1885lb minimum
109-110whp estimate = 40% increase over stock = 2130 minimum

Your car was classed based on numbers supplied to us by our Honda experts. It was the old way of having to 'prove' things, and by that I mean "Peter said', or 'Bob said' those numbers were for sure doable. Now the Process is held to a much higher standard - right or wrong.

My unnofficial opinion on 3 cars in ITB:

Golf: Is 50lbs light by virtue of an 'adder' it got for bad read suspension that was mis-applied and is no longer part of the Process.

Accord: Right on

Your car: Potentially right on if the power estimate the ITAC assigned to it way-back-when is close to correct.

[RacerBill]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document..

Exactly!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!

2A. There are cars in the ITCS that are red flags. Alfas, Audis, Triumphs, anything from the smog era, etc. These cars may show low stock HP and huge gains in IT trim or have unreliable European hp numbers from different eras. Careful care and patience must be displayed on both sides. ITAC should do reasearch. Member may be required to submit real dyno data and build sheets. All in an effort for a one-off to be classed fairly but to limit the potential for a mistake that disrupts the class.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

Andy: Your post is spot on. I do believe that we need to reword the section of the ITCS that deals with the current specification and weight determination section.

[lateapex911]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document.

That's pretty much where we were when the chains got thrown into the machine. That was what we were doing, and we had the Process fine tuned to do it in a consistent, transparent and repeatable manner.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

You weren't on my last call, Andy, the CRB was certainly told that they were ignoring the members wishes and standards. Well, the CRB members of the CRB that are on our call were told that.....I used to assume that they reported back to the entire CRB in a responsible fashion, but after being told that member(s) of the CRB were completely unfamiliar with the "Process" which had been in use for 5 years, I guess I was naive in my thinking that the CRB body 'ran" the show, as opposed to two or three members..

[Knestis]

Hello from Portland, ME...! I've had a couple of beers and the hotel room has wireless...

1. There is no functional process.

2. A couple guys at the ITAC-CRB intersection decide what weights they think are OK for IT cars.

3. The rest of the CRB members are busy dealing with the categories THEY race in, so rubber stamp those decisions.

4. Explanations of various and changing "systems" get used to explain away the inconsistency.

5. People who can see what is really going on are fine with it.

6. People who should be pissed off are largely apathetic.

7. People who have recently fought city hall lost.

8. I expect my director to start working to fix this problem. You should too.

9. There is still unconsumed beer in Maine.

K

[Greg Gauper]

Speaking as someone with some experience with the 12V motor in the more liberal limted prep production trim, I find the 109WHP target for a legal IT prep motor a bit optimistic...

What kind of weight numbers do you come up with a more conservative target of 105WHP?

Also, did they lose the 7" rims when they got moved back to ITB?

[trhoppe]

Someone add 100-150lbs to the damn ITA 1.8 Miata already

[Knestis]

Someone add 100-150lbs to the damn ITA 1.8 Miata already

Hey, Tom - when you base your opinions on on-track performance, you're officially part of the problem rather than the solution.

K

[JeffYoung]

I really can't emphasize enough, for the others reading this thread, how much you just don't know what you are talking about.

Work on the relationship? That's rich. The CRB has said the "relationship" is servile - shut up and do what we want, the way we want it and when you don't, it's still going to be the way we want it.

I fail to see where there is any grey area in which to work. It is very clear to me that there is no possibility of "working with" the current CRB. The only variable that can be altered is the CRB itself, as in how to get it replaced.

There are members of the CRB that have been disingenuous, dishonest and deceitful in their dealings with the ITAC. There is no possibility of reforming that.



Well, I would disagree on many counts. There are people on the CRB who by their dishonest actions are bad people. I have doubts regarding their commitment to the success of IT - the CRB suffers from a Runoffs-centric view. As for Quisling/Henry - you either hold true to your convictions or you don't

If one believes in the "process" and disagrees with the displacement view, continuing as an underling for the current CRB equates to being a sellout. There is no hope of changing their world view. The current CRB has made that very clear. I far more respect the act of resignation.

[jjjanos]

I really can't emphasize enough, for the others reading this thread, how much you just don't know what you are talking about.

And I can't emphasize enough to you that after I responded to Mr. Dowie on the scca forums, I received information that members of the CRB were agreeing to one thing and then doing something else. Where I sit, that is dishonest, disingenuous and deceitful. Along those lines, members of the CRB may be acting unethical as well because they must completely remove themselves from the discussion and voting if the matter relates to a class in which they participate.

Rule 5.A.5: Don't vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally. - CRB operations manual

Run an ITB Accord? Then you must completely excuse yourself from any matter relating to ITB. Run any IT car? Then you must completely excuse yourself from any matter relating to IT philosophy or changes to the entire category.

They aren't all bad, but the Osmond Brothers rule applies.

[Ron Earp]

I really can't emphasize enough, for the others reading this thread, how much you just don't know what you are talking about.

Well, not to defend is comments but it might be that he doesn't know what he's talking about because the open and transparent nature of the ITAC has largely disappeared. Josh is doing what he can, I believe, but member interactions are much different with ITAC V3.0 compared to ITAC V2.0. Do all the members of the current ITAC regularly use the internet?

Me, I think I'll ask for term limits, voting procedures requiring abstinence for involved members, and a clause that prevents members from serving on the ITAC unless they have actively raced IT in the last twelve months and are current license holders.

Why does ITB always set this shit off?

[jjjanos]

Well, not to defend is comments but it might be that he doesn't know what he's talking about because the open and transparent nature of the ITAC has largely disappeared.

ITAC isn't the problem.